Interesting Links for 30-10-2013

[andrewducker]

• HS2 will be worth 2.3x what it costs. Unless rail demand keeps rising, in which case 4.5x
  (tags: uk transport rail hs2 )
• Scroll Down to Riker
  (tags: quotes StarTrek funny )
• Nice map of mortality rates in the US, broken down by type and state.
  (tags: maps death mortality disease usa )
• Digital radio is a failure. Anyone tell me why?
  (tags: radio

Comments

[momentsmusicaux]

Digital radio is a failure possibly because regular radio works fine. Digital doesn't really add anything. The name of the station? Well listen long enough and the announcer will say it. Faffy digital extras? I have no idea what those even are -- there's some sort of cricket thingy maybe, but how do you receive it? Extra stations? Eh, if you really want a specific programme you'd be getting it on iPlayer anyway

[del_c]

Yes, when my FM alarm radio died, a good FM replacement didn't seem available, so I chose a DAB radio. My impressions at the time were:

-Much more expensive for what they offer, which is just radio
-Clunky boxy design, almost like they'd rushed the prototypes into production
-Bad reception at home
-Slow to turn on when I press the "on" button. This is particularly annoying when I absentmindedly turn the radio off *just* as it says something interesting; by the time it comes back on again the moment is lost.

I can't help feeling like Tommy Lee Jones in MIB, that it was just a way to make you "buy the White Album again".

[naath]

Whereas my DAB radio/alarm is much much better than the previous FM thing I had. The design is decent (I am not picky though);the reception is SO MUCH BETTER, wow, no more arial wiggle-dance to make it pick up anything; it turns on pretty much instantly (on the same station it was on when I turned it off).

It does have the irritating habit that after about 1 minute of radio it glitches (only once, just after turning it on), not sure what's up with that.

DAB is bad for portable radios (it eats battery) which is annoying. But since I have yet to find a portable radio that actually manages to pick up a clear enough Radio 4 signal for me to listen to it when I am carrying it around Cambridge (this might be something to do with Cambridge, or it might be me)...

[del_c]

It was depressing, after the hype about DAB's superior quality, to have to put it on a shelf at the limits of the power cord's extension, then tape the ariel as much higher than that as it would go, just to get a signal. Then avoid going too near the ariel when moving around. It turns out I had an FM-friendly house.

Is there a word for the feeling that a new technology isn't bringing the promised new benefits? How about "techschmerz"?

[steer]

Digital has a zillion more channels. It adds spectrum space. Most of the channels I want to listen to are digital only. FM radio is "full". If you want to launch a new FM channel then you pretty much have to switch off an old one.

That said all digital channels stream so I can listen anyway even without a digital radio.

Yes, from a point of view of just getting content to the listener, there's nothing different... but digital allows more content.

I think the reason digital radio is a failure is that, for most people, they now have a way to listen to digital channels without a digital radio.

[momentsmusicaux]

I've never listened to a digital-only channel. Oh wait maybe BBC radio 7, but back when it was sort of an online-only thing.

[steer]

Heh... that's pretty much in a nutshell the tragedy of digital radio I mean. BBC radio 7 was never an online only thing. It was branded BBC7 then BBC Radio 7 then BBC Radio 4 extra but it's always been a digital radio channel. However, by the very nature of it it's actually far more convenient to listen to online. So I listen to it lots, but usually from its weekly archive almost never streaming and never by retuning my digital radio (even though that's the press of a couple of buttons).

I guess you could argue that whether it's a digital radio station or an online radio station is almost irrelevant. Which is fair enough -- and which I think is also why not that many people are interested in digital radio.

I know a lot of my friends listen to Radio 6 music (as do I) but again I suspect mostly streaming the shows they want rather than just tuning in and hoping its something good.

[andrewducker]

We've apparently passed the point where people worry about bandwidth if people choose podcasts rather than radio.

Unless everyone chooses their listening in the morning, before leaving home.

[steer]

Oh god... I think we're well past the point where we worry about bandwidth for audio (at least in the developed world). If it's not video (and increasingly video at reasonable definition) then it's just in the noise as far as bandwidth works out.

[andrewducker]

Interesting. I know I went with GiffGaff because it was unlimited internet - what's your cap? I was under the impression that lots of people were still only on 100MB or so per month.

[steer]

Sorry -- we are slightly at cross purposes. I assumed you were talking backhaul bandwidth. I listen streaming at home over wifi so it comes off my broadband allocation not off my mobile allocation. That said, in fact my mobile allocation is not limited anyway... I think my broadband has a cap but large.

[andrewducker]

Aaah, no. At home it's trivial, absolutely.

I'm mostly asking purely out of curiosity, as I use Spotify for all my music,.

[steer]

Incidentally, I think another reason for lack of uptake in digital radio is really that a digital radio is (for me) slightly too pricey and definitely too large to be something you carry around with you anyway. So the reason I didn't think of mobile when you said "what about bandwidth costs" is that my digital radio is something which sits by the side of my bed and doesn't move. I don't carry it about with me to listen to elsewhere because it's a bit bulky and a bit pricey to do that.

FM you can get a tiny "carry it with you" radio if you want that or one cheap enough to have blaring out while you paint the fence and it doesn't matter if the neighbours cat pees on it.

[ext_208701]

60 million people at 64kbps each = 3.7Tbps. LINX passes 1.7Tbps over the public exchange, there's an estimate of about the same in private so the backbone in the UK is easily fast enough.

[andrewducker]

The backbone may be - but most people, last I checked, didn't get unlimited mobile bandwidth per month.

[ext_208701]

Indeed, similarly three.co.uk have 40Gbps, BT have 200Gbps+. That said Vodafone have 120Gbps and they have to deliver that traffic somewhere.